I actually agree with Disney Duster on this one. That's just the way I like to view magic in fairy tales, excluding, of course, instances where these things are explained further into satanism.

I was freaking talking about Disney Witches. I stated it explicitly- not hard to figure out. Do you guys really think they conjure their power from the same source as Cinderella's Fairy Godmother and Glinda the Good Witch, etc(.)? Ask anyone: there is a difference between magic and black magic in fiction.

rs_milo_whatever wrote:

And as for being looked down on for our interests. I love Britney Spears to the point where I am still obsessed with her. I win.

I really hope you grow out of that. She is so boring when compared to just about any other female pop music figure of the last 40 years. Yeah, that's right, that weirdo who sang "You Light Up My Life" (Debby Boone) is more interesting on most days than Twitney. Her and her flavorlessness is literally the reason everyone lost respect for pop, dance, and club music over the last 12 years. Thanks to her, Goldfrapp - FAR MORE deserving of the insane amounts of worship Spears gets - have practically been relegated to obscure status (in America, at least). I honestly don't know what's more sad, Britney trying to pass off something like "Till the World Ends" as anything but trash or her fans for honestly being worried about her during the time when she made her best freaking music. And even then, any female performer with a baby could have performed "Piece of Me" (one of her few lyrically rewarding and intriguing tracks). As I'm sure I've said before when you brought her up- she does none of the work in the production of her music. She phones in her vocal performances and dances the videos and tours out. Not a single thing about her equals art.

Alright, you were talking about witches. Did I not say there were exceptions to my way of thinking? I was talking about magic in general.

As for Miss. Spears. I really will not make an effort to defend her. If her 13 years of remaining relevant and putting out some of the best tours and making the best videos while being one of the only two pop stars who have been known to out-dance her back up dancers doesn't do the trick, nothing I say will be able to convince you. She does a lot more than you think though, she's been noted by several music writers to be the only pop star who will let them keep the writing credit even when she does put work into it as supposed to everyone else who just add a couple of "oohs" and boast about their lyrical genius. I strongly believe that performing the way she does (I will admit, the word "did" applies to her more nowadays), and sex appeal is a form of art. Churning out generic/ecclectic music, followinf trends, and wearing outlandish outfits seem to be the only way a person gets any respect these days. Britney is one of those "haters will always hate" things in the world. Like it's been said here, there are negative bandwagons that will help people feel like they belong or feel smarter than others; I simply choose not to be part of them whether I like something or not. It's really easy to say someone does nothing without fully knowing about them. "Talent-less" is such a poor description about celebrities, because as soon as someone doesn't like them, they become talent-less to them. I dislike Justin Bieber, but I don't have the talent to do what he does. I dislike GaGa, but I don't have the talent to do what she does. Just like I doubt you would be able to do backflips and bellydance and pole dance and hip-hop dance and dance technically and sing; because contrary to what people believe, she can sing, it just takes discovering the instances where isn't trying to sell sex and dance music.

People who are bashing the movie Titanic because of the fictional story while saying A Night to Remember is better because there are no fictional subplots. When will the hating and bashing of anything on the Internet stop? ALL THE BASHING I SEE MAKES ME WANT TO CRY. PEOPLE BASHING ANYTHING ONLINE MAKES ME WANT TO CRY.

You've never hated anything enough to bash it? You should try it, it's therapeutic and the more you discuss things anyway, the more you understand how things work. You do learn from the experience, either way. Besides, this is Hollywood. If you had any clue how callous most of the assholes who work in that system are and how little they care about anything or anyone real and how much they care about money instead... you'd stop crying and get as mad as I do. Titanic? Seriously? That film is all about James Cameron's ego. At every turn. Also- Leonardo Di Caprio is the worst kind of cheesy, Celion Dion is the worst kind of corny... nevermind; this is Titantic the movie, the awfulness is self-explanatory.

Ever hate anything? Well I used to hate people that bashed DTV sequels and got into fights over it on another board. I got banned for it. That board doesn't exist anymore. It taught me bashing and hating cause nothing but trouble. The Titanic bashing like much I see comes from IMDB. I am beginning to wonder if I should leave that place.

If her 13 years of remaining relevant and putting out some of the best tours and making the best videos while being one of the only two pop stars who have been known to out-dance her back up dancers doesn't do the trick, nothing I say will be able to convince you. She does a lot more than you think though, she's been noted by several music writers to be the only pop star who will let them keep the writing credit even when she does put work into it as supposed to everyone else who just add a couple of "oohs" and boast about their lyrical genius. I strongly believe that performing the way she does (I will admit, the word "did" applies to her more nowadays), and sex appeal is a form of art. Churning out generic/ecclectic music, followinf trends, and wearing outlandish outfits seem to be the only way a person gets any respect these days. Britney is one of those "haters will always hate" things in the world. Like it's been said here, there are negative bandwagons that will help people feel like they belong or feel smarter than others; I simply choose not to be part of them whether I like something or not. It's really easy to say someone does nothing without fully knowing about them. "Talent-less" is such a poor description about celebrities, because as soon as someone doesn't like them, they become talent-less to them. I dislike Justin Bieber, but I don't have the talent to do what he does. I dislike GaGa, but I don't have the talent to do what she does. Just like I doubt you would be able to do backflips and bellydance and pole dance and hip-hop dance and dance technically and sing; because contrary to what people believe, she can sing, it just takes discovering the instances where isn't trying to sell sex and dance music.

And whatayaknow, I totally took the effort of explaining myself.

Wow... I mean, just: WOW. Britney deserves all the credit in music she gets because she can do more acrobatics than most people? She's a "relevant" artist because she still puts out albums? And more talented people are less talented because you claim Britney doesn't pad her music with sound effects?

That's a house of cards I don't even want to touch. It's best to just back away from crazy of that kind of magnitude. I'll just expand on a point I made before:

Oh, wait... why bother comparing the BEST pop act of the last decade (in case you don't click the links, it's Goldfrapp) to one of pop's most overrated sideshows? I could just slam Britney by showing - musically - who she ripped off out the box to get where she is now:

Robyn's "Do You Know (What It Takes)" and "Show Me Love" beat Britney BY A YEAR. Britney copied her sound and got where she is now by DANCING better. Meanwhile, Robyn didn't disappear. She in fact continued to outclass Britney with singles like this:

The fact that someone did something similar earlier doesn't take away from Britney's talent. Britney became big for her massive sex appeal and stage presence. She is a pop star who performs dance music, not a songwriter or a musician; a performer. I can compare her to a lot of people who I think she's better than too, and it won't take away from either of those people's talent. Today she's a mother of two who does music on the side, she isn't looking to prove anything or be daring or cutting edge. Which she is still setting trends; but on her peak, Britney did so many things to piss off her label and did what she wanted because she was Britney freakin' Spears and she could, she started out being led by her people but she ultimately got big enough to make her own decisions. And a lot of people would know that if they cared to look it up before bandwaggoning against her.

It's funny that you mention Robyn since they actually really like each other musically. They are two sides of the same coin, one focuses on the spectacle and the other on the art of it all. They both sound similar because they both worked with Max Martin since the beginning, but if we're gonna use the "Whoever was first is better" arguments, Britney brought Max Martin back from his old 90's teen scene with her newest stuff, and out of that he's worked out some of the most popular tunes these days. Same goes for Dr. Luke, but he usually hands out the more generic stuff for others.

It's a little late for you to be trying to convince me how humble she is and how I should respect her for doing something so simple after the huge show you put on about how talented and great she is. Like she's the best thing to ever happen to pop, dance, club. She's just about the worst, as a matter of fact (Ricky Martin probably has her beat; and... okay, again the boy bands). And copying Robyn's sound is one very leading piece of evidence. Name one reason we should really give a shit about her. She's a wannabe Madonna clone who everyone knows can't touch her. Lady Gaga bested her in every significant area of music (quality, substance, and cultural relevance) as have Goldfrapp. Rihanna's songs have proven to be far more memorable. Ke$ha's writing songs for her (and considering how many people feel she's been the lowest thing in pop the last 2 years, this does mean something). And the public flat-out likes Katy Perry more. Britney would now be considered a has-been across the board were it not for the fact there was no Lady Gaga in 2002. Oh, wait, let's not forget Fergie and Gwen gone solo.

I'm perfectly aware she was just a girl pushed too far at too young an age. But I feel like I'm the only one sometimes. Are her achievements amazing FOR a girl that age? Yes. But not for any act being affixed with labels like Princess of Pop or the New Queen of Pop. Whatever they were trying to call her back in the "I'm a Slave 4 U" / "Toxic" era. Her image was a very poor joke and that's what I'm criticizing. I don't give a damn about her personal life. She was a hick girl from a hick place who went on national TV and said we should all support our President- who at that time was an idiotic manchild conservative asshole pushing a religious agenda with no respect for anyone within her target audiences - girls or gay guys. People like you would never have been interested in her as a person if you hadn't had the mostly lame pop music. So... think about what you're really saying with all this "she has talent" stuff. Does she? If you care so much about her talent as a dancer that you think that talent is enough to justify her reputation as a force in pop music- you're in a minority. The girls actually care about messages in her music (and some if not most will find them where there are none) and straight guys only watch her if they think she's hot enough to bang.

Super Aurora wrote:

So Lazario, thanks for your attempt to help but as I posted eariler I was able find out the brand. Now I can use good reference pictures now for my character.

I actually agree with Disney Duster on this one. That's just the way I like to view magic in fairy tales, excluding, of course, instances where these things are explained further into satanism.

I was freaking talking about Disney Witches. I stated it explicitly- not hard to figure out. Do you guys really think they conjure their power from the same source as Cinderella's Fairy Godmother and Glinda the Good Witch, etc(.)? Ask anyone: there is a difference between magic and black magic in fiction.

Even if they use different sources, that might be right, but you still have no proof any source is Satan or any deity. And there also is no proof they use different sources, either. They could simply use magic, from whatever source, in either an evil way or a good way. In many fairy tales and Disney films, magic seems to be born into fairies and sometimes some witches. Even the story of Satan says he was a fallen angel, using what power he had as an angel for evil.

IMDB people always bash me on Anastasia board there and people on all the IMDB boards I visit are just as insane.

I can't stand people that hate the new Dalek design. The new Daleks haven't even been in battle yet and they talk about getting rid of the colors because stupid people wouldn't keep their mouths shut. I wish people would live and let live.

I actually agree with Disney Duster on this one. That's just the way I like to view magic in fairy tales, excluding, of course, instances where these things are explained further into satanism.

I was freaking talking about Disney Witches. I stated it explicitly- not hard to figure out. Do you guys really think they conjure their power from the same source as Cinderella's Fairy Godmother and Glinda the Good Witch, etc(.)? Ask anyone: there is a difference between magic and black magic in fiction.

Even if they use different sources, that might be right, but you still have no proof any source is Satan or any deity. And there also is no proof they use different sources, either. They could simply use magic, from whatever source, in either an evil way or a good way. In many fairy tales and Disney films, magic seems to be born into fairies and sometimes some witches. Even the story of Satan says he was a fallen angel, using what power he had as an angel for evil.

Duster, you are the #1 Board Offender when it comes to making things more complicated than they really are just to hear yourself hypothesize. And, really, when you put it like this- nobody cares anymore. NOBODY is that interested in your theories of dieties and All the Different Angels you think exist. This was an extremely simple equation that Disney holds dear. Bad witches get their power from a bad source. They have bad powers. No, they're not powers that the witches use FOR BAD. They are bad powers. Which can only be used for bad. Culled from a dark source. That's all there actually is to it. Why? Because the movies aren't that complicated. If not Satan, who the fuck else WOULD they get their powers from? (That is a rhetorical question designed to make you think about it on your own time.) But if it's so interesting for you to muse about where they come from that you want to unload about it in threads I post in, leave me out of it. Thanks.

You can't tell others where and what they can and can't post like some Nazi.

Anyway, the idea of where they would get their powers from could easily just be some made up source just like the magic in the films is made up and not supposed to be based on any specific gods or religion. There's room to look at the films religiously and atheistically, that's part of their mass appeal.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum